Outside of that? Not such. Virologists seem to caucus on different information, different views. The stuff I read says there is virological genome evidence of at least two distinct instances of "early light" and that a wet-market breakout independent of the lab remains the majority view inside the community. Most news sources are reflecting on both the sheer number of reports, their politicized nature, and the low confidence in their signalling.
If this is defence-intelligence led conclusions, and if we're not going to be allowed to "know how they know, know what they know" -then.. how do we weigh it up against scientific consensus, such as it is?
You would expect the lab to be doing things, and you would expect lab staff to get infected if they're both resident in a city with a rampant infection playing out, and involved in virology.
This isn't a situation where their in-lab defences mean they aren't exposed to things outside in the community, is it?
3 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 18.7 ms ] threadOutside of that? Not such. Virologists seem to caucus on different information, different views. The stuff I read says there is virological genome evidence of at least two distinct instances of "early light" and that a wet-market breakout independent of the lab remains the majority view inside the community. Most news sources are reflecting on both the sheer number of reports, their politicized nature, and the low confidence in their signalling.
If this is defence-intelligence led conclusions, and if we're not going to be allowed to "know how they know, know what they know" -then.. how do we weigh it up against scientific consensus, such as it is?
You would expect the lab to be doing things, and you would expect lab staff to get infected if they're both resident in a city with a rampant infection playing out, and involved in virology.
This isn't a situation where their in-lab defences mean they aren't exposed to things outside in the community, is it?